Singapore entrusts significant powers and broad discretion to the executive to make decisions on a wide range of matters. These include POFMA and FICA, which allow Ministers to give directions and make decisions relating to fake news and foreign interference, and the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill, which empowers the Online Safety Commission to direct take down of harmful content or restrict online accounts.
Where executive discretion is exercised, and in the absence of a judicial review ouster, the public usually is only able to use judicial review to question it, albeit limited to grounds of legality, procedural proprietary and rationality. A recent use was in the UK in 2019, when its Supreme Court ruled that then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, and Parliament resumed the next day. In Singapore, judicial review is rare.
Given this, how does Singapore guide and monitor the use of executive discretion, and what are the safeguards in place to ensure these are done judiciously?
I am not saying there is no place for executive discretion, nor am I calling for judicial micromanagement. Instead, I hope for better understanding and data about first, if there is any central tracking of the use of executive powers, and two, what are the principles, if any, that guide the use of such oversight.
We should have a central public registry to record ministerial powers and delegated authorities, allowing Parliament, the media and citizens to better understand who holds what powers, and when they apply. Public bodies should publish periodic reports on how their discretionary powers are exercised. For instance, during the debate on the Online Safety Bill, the Workers’ Party proposed that the OSC submit annual reports detailing the number and categories of reports received, directions issued, and findings on online harm trends. Such a report should be a starting point for our various agencies.
Finally, the legal principles and thresholds guiding executive discretion should be transparent and made known, providing a clear framework for decision-making and reducing public concern about motives. Such an approach would strengthen trust, enhance oversight, and affirm Singapore’s commitment to accountable and effective governance in our public bodies.
